I'm sorry, but if they worked to get where they were and are qualified, they should have the right to have those jobs. Don't post speculation that they "wont do their job" as fact.

Quote:

Originally Posted by GarfieldJL

Thanks for pointing out the thing on Michelle, I had forgotten about her being swooned over too. And before you try to smear Newsbusters as usual, the article actually sources the news agencies they are accusing of conflict of interest. If you'll note I said "crush on the Obamas," or are you saying Michelle isn't married to Barack?

... T-thanks for pointing out?

YOU WERE THE ONE WHO POSTED IT.

Thank you yet again for proving that you don't even read your own sources. And you wonder why people get angry at you...

And as far as the Obama's go, what you posted was a damn blog. Stop it with the damn blogs, or I will report you for spam. Its even better that you are posting this in a thread about credibility in wikipedia.

I'm sorry to open this door up for you, but women have erotic thoughts as well. The media has little control over what gets to a woman, and if that happens to be Barack for some of them then I wont judge. There are worse people they could be swooning over anyway, like some drugged out celebrity singer.

And, considering that is a blog, I could care less what she says. Most of the people she quotes are people who wrote to her due to the e-mail inquiry she sent out.

Quote:

Originally Posted by GarfieldJL

Because it shows your sources have no credibility at all it's a red herring... You have a strange definition of what a red herring is.

Do you even know what a Red Herring is? Because you make an awful lot of them.

This is a thread on Wikipedia and you find it necessary to bring in a topic of random women having fantasies about Obama to distract from the fact you don't have any other argument but smears.

You present blogs from journalists, not even actual articles, as evidence of this. That is a Red Herring. If you don't like it, stop making them or learn the fallacies.

Quote:

Originally Posted by GarfieldJL

Oh so now you finally, admit MSNBC isn't a credible source, okay so next I'm going to have to find enough sourcing and stuff that maybe you'll also admit Fox News is a credible source. Seriously though, Ann Coulter is more credible than some of the people at MSNBC.

Haha

This is the exact reason I left Kavars when you were posting. You completely fail to read posts. Completely and utterly fail. I have mentioned that I think MSNBC is a biased source for months.

Fox News is on the same level as MSNBC, as I said if you had read my entire post. Fox is biased towards its own opinions, and many of its pundits are down right jackasses like they are on MSNBC.

And no, Ann Coulter has no credibility. At all. She is a racist sexist and has an admitted biased. Nice try though.

Quote:

Originally Posted by GarfieldJL

Well you know someone got sued for making a phony video and releasing it to try to make it look like John Gibson from Fox News was a racist? That kind of smear campaign is relatively common by the left, but the reason this resulted in a lawsuit is because it was a reporter from an MSNBC subsidiary.

Again with the MSNBC... Why do you think they represent the entire left?

Does everything every Fox News pundit has ever said represent the entire right? No, it doesn't.

And the best part is, you just proved the VERY THING YOU RESPONDED TO.

Quote:

Originally Posted by True_Avery

also find it interesting that whenever someone calls you on Fox News, you throw MSNBC out as a strawman, never actually taking on the Fox News part of the argument. MSNBC is biased and we can both agree on that, so I don't need you continuously pointlessly pointing it out when it doesn't need to be.